Talk:Sex in advertising/Archives/2016

Update source 15. in Effectiveness section
When reading through the effectiveness section I came across the sentence " A 2005 research by MediaAnalyzer has found that less than 10% of men recalled the brand of sexual ads, compared to more than 19% of non sexual ads; a similar result was found in women (10.8% vs. 22.3%). It is hypothesized by that survey, that this is a result of a general numbing caused by over use of sexual stimuli[15] in advertising." I found this information to be interesting and wanted to check out the original source, only to find that it leads to a blog page. In the blog page there is another link that leads to a page in German and when translated it reads error 404 page not found. If a direct link to the MediaAnalyzer study could be provided that would be much better.Danteglauria (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review.
This article is very detailed, and covers a broad range of topics such as gender differences, type of advert, and cultural differences. I particularly enjoyed the inclusion of adverts that are not overtly sexual such as the Volkswagen advert with the pixelation. This was a beneficial addition to the article because it is an unusual perspective that would not immediately have been thought of. This article also used a variety of reliable and interesting sources which made it rich with information, in different formats. Furthermore, there are some unexpected findings included, such as the studies that showed sex in TV advertising to actually be overrated. This demonstrates that the authors have thoroughly researched the topic, and not just found information that confirms their initial expectations (that sex sells). My final compliment of this article is that the use of financial statistics were good, as they were examples of solid evidence to demonstrate how effective certain adverts are. This is much more informative than simply stating "This was an effective advert."

There is one citation that is missing, for the quotation "sex sells," this should be added in. Also, I would suggest that the paragraph on how effective sex in advertising is be shortened as it is quite long and dense. Furthermore, "effectiveness" is quite a clunky title so maybe something like "Success" would read better.

Lauren Haynes (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Overall, this was a great article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauren Haynes (talk • contribs) 12:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lauren, thank you for all the feedback, we really appreciate it! We've fixed the citation for sex sells, and shortened the paragraph on sex in advertising. We have decided to continue with effectiveness because we couldn't think of a better alternative. Thanks again for all your comments! Tmase1 (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
Hi,

Great article guys, with a clear structure and headings to signpost relevant components. I really like the use of images to illustrate effective adverts, especially the 'sexual embeds' section. I also like how you offer a balanced perspective, demonstrating how sex is not always a persuasive selling tool. A very informative page.

Here are some suggestions for further improvements:


 * The leading paragraph (introduction) seems quite short. Perhaps you could extend this to include more history of sexual advertising, and how this has changed over time to provide some background to your article. I have seen that you already have a history section, so a brief overview would be fine. Maybe add some references here too?
 * You state that "research has shown that sexual arousal elicited by an advert subsequently affects the overall ad evaluation and the chances of future purchase." Do you have any statistics from this research to highlight consumer rates as evidence for the advert's effectiveness?
 * In your gender differences section you could include how females and males are portrayed differently in adverts, rather than just the response that the sexes have towards the advert. Examples of sexual adverts including men would also be useful, as I feel like most of the article is focused around females. For instance, you mention that there has been an increase in the sexual objectification of men, but do not explicitly state how.
 * There is a link to the Wikipedia page 'gift' in your gender differences section. Is this really relevant?
 * In your cultural differences section it would be good to compare the attitudes of South Korean's with those in the UK, and possibly explain why these may differ.
 * In your history section, the following sentences need a citation: "In several notable cases, sex in advertising has been claimed as the reason for increased consumer interest and sales", and "The agency head hit on the idea of a pleasurable condom, "So when the user hears the brand name, he says, "Wow. It's a turn on. Not a turn off.""

Overall, I am impressed with the quality of your article. I hope this feedback is useful. Catherine Turvey (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Catherine, thanks for your review! We've added to the leading paragraph and added a section to gender differences, as well as covered it in the Evolutionary Theory section. We also removed the gift link (not sure why it was there). Thank you again for your review, its really helped us improve the article! Tmase1 (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi,

Great construction and explanation here as well as interesting examples! Especially different types of adverts, I did not expect there were various kinds of sexual advertisements before, it is really interesting. Also gender differences and cultural differences are two main parts contributing to influences of the ads. it is really well mentioned in the section of the effectiveness of advertising.

Here are some suggestions regarding your contributions:
 * I am not sure if that is just me or others feel the same, I am a bit confused about the difference between sexual referents and sexual embeds, maybe you could explain it with comparisons?
 * In the gender difference section under effectiveness, it might be useful to include one or two examples to illustrate the difference more straight-forward.
 * Also for the same section, as mentioned above in previous peer review, including the effects on gender difference from not only female centred ads. as well as male-focused ads. would be able to demonstrate the effect clearer.
 * In the cultural difference section, you have included the study of South Korea mainly, it could be helpful to include more about Western culture as well and the influences of the culture difference onto the adverts.
 * The body of effectiveness section was quite dense, is that possible to cut some down and show what was really important to mention?
 * In the section of objectification, there was one link missing ‘These adverts can lead to self-objectification,’ the word self-objectification was not successfully linked to the wiki page.

All in all, there was really impressive information and I got a lot more insight of the concept now thank you guys! Good luck with your page! AnitaChen (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Anita, thank you for the review! We've tried to clear up the difference between sexual referents and sexual embeds, hopefully it is clearer now. Unfortunately there is a shortage on good research investigating cultural differences, so we haven't yet been able to add to the cultural differences section. We've edited down the effectiveness section, and sorted the missing link. Thanks again for your review, it really helped us improve the page! Tmase1 (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi, Your work is a very good, interesting and detailed article. You covered all important areas in this topic. Photos are a great illustration of your examples and help to figure a main point of sexual content in advertising. It is also great that reader can look at this topic from different perspectives. You did a great job. Here are some suggestions, from me, to improve your article: It is a great piece of knowledge and it is a nice article to read!
 * You can add a link to “pin-up girls” in the introduction.
 * I would add a photo to fill empty space at the beginning of article, next to introduction. It could be the first advertising with sex appeal or the most crystal clear one.
 * Please, pay attention that sometimes both words of sub-headings 1 are upper case and sometimes only first word. It will look nicer if style will be the same, I think.
 * You could add examples to physical attractiveness and sexual behaviour as you did in sexual referents and sexual embeds.
 * It seems that you’ve missed citation in some parts. And when someone reads your article they can see: [citation needed].
 * In last paragraph your link to self-objectification doesn’t work.
 * You have a lot of good, illustrative photos related directly to content so I think that another photo, with Kim Kardashian, can be unnecessary.
 * I would also change place of “History” paragraph directly after “The Concept” and try to compress whole text, because in my opinion it is a little bit too long. However, I understand that you wanted to place all important information.

Izabela.K (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Izabela.K

Hi Izabela, thank you very much for your feedback, we appreciate it! We have added a link to pin-up girls as you suggested. We agree about the blank space at the top however if we add a photo it doesn't actually stay in that space, we tried! I have changed the different titles making them all consistent upper and lower-case wise, thanks for that. I have added an example for sexual behaviour, good idea. We have attempted to rectify as many "missing citations" as possible but some of the text wasn't provided by us so hopefully the original authors can fix that. We have corrected the broken link to self-objectification. Also, we have removed the Kardashian photo and moved up the history part following your advice. Thanks for you useful suggestions! AlexandraDB (talk)

Peer Review
Hi, I find this article greatly engaging. I like the way you have listed all the different types of sexual advertising as some of them are quite subliminal and would not at first jump out as examples of sex in advertising such as the "sexual referents". However, I was not completely sure what the difference between "sexual referents" and "sexual embeds" is? They sound quite similar, so I would suggest highlighting the differences. I really like that you have included pictures and illustrations to support your examples. It demonstrates how very often we are so exposed to such tools that we have ceased to notice them as such. I like that you go back in history to mention the first example of a use of sex in advertising such as the Pearl Tobacco bran in 1871. I was quite curious to see what that looked like, however, it is the one that you have not included a picture of it. Considering it is the first one and quite important, I would maybe suggest including a picture? I also quite liked that you have included criticism of it according to different groups. I thought it might be a good idea to maybe include what possible consequences on sexual behaviour there might be as a result of sex in advertising? Is there any research done on that? Perhaps it encourages more promiscuity? Is that a reason it should be more limited? Just some food for thought. Overall, I think the article is very detailed and well written. Good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhpopova (talk • contribs) 15:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nora, thank you very much for your feedback!

I have hopefully clarified the difference between sexual embeds and referents following several comments about it. Good idea about the Pearl Tobacco, unfortunately we aren't the original authors and therefore don't know exactly which one is being referred to. In the objectification paragraph we have highlighted the negative impact that sex in advertising can have for example decrease in self-body image leading to mental health problems. We haven't found any more research on how it affects sexual behaviour although that would be interesting.

Thanks again for your helpful suggestions! AlexandraDB (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi guys, great article - The group has done a great job, the article is very well written and it covers many relevant aspects of sex in advertising that I had never considered before. It is very informative.
 * The article has a clear layout with an appropriate amount of photographs which stops the page from looking dense
 * The article has been broken down well into many clear and understandable subsections
 * A possible suggestion is to add a photograph in the introduction part as it looks a bit bare
 * In the effectiveness subsections you have presented balanced research on the extent sex works well in advertising – providing an  appropriately objective point of view
 * Also in the effectiveness section; paragraph one, five and seven and paragraph one in the Criticism subsection contain missing citations
 * In the Objection subsection – the sentence that says “these adverts can lead to self-objectification” has double brackets surrounding it.
 * In terms of content I think it is very well explained and I don’t think much revision or editing is needed content wise

Best of luck TanGND (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, many thanks for you suggestions! We have moved up a photo at the top of the article to fill in the blank space. We have attempted to add missing citations where possible however some of the work was not provided by us so hopefully the original authors could add those. We have repaired the self-objectification link, thanks for letting us know. Thanks again for your useful feedback. AlexandraDB (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi, Really interesting and informative article!

• General concept section

Good objective stance that states facts. May be reference the statement of 'about three-quarters of advertisements using sex...' if you have a source?

• Types of sex in advertising section

Really well laid out - very clear and succinct.

I'd say you could add more value here by adding examples into the sexual behaviour and physical attractiveness sections - like you have done for the other two types of advertising - I think they worked really well

May be add links for Calvin Klein, Pepsi & VS in sexual referents section?

• The effectiveness section is really interesting and a well-balanced account of how sex in advertising works.

I like the fact you use a few key examples.

May be to add value here - a comparison of sales before and after a particular ad campaign in graph form may be something that illustrates the effectiveness of sex in advertising? - The A&F revenue mentioned for example could be translated into a graph? Or even another example.

Add link for VW?

• The Gender differences section gives some good scientific theories for why men and women react differently to sex in adverts.

'Other studies have found...' - I'm not sure if this sentence is related to gender? - more effeteness? - or may be not very clear if it is related to the gender section? - So may be needs to be moved?

In the final sentence of this section I would add in a comma after 'even in men'

• Culture differences paragraph is really dense with detail however more could be written here (if there is enough literature on it?)

• History section of the page gives examples of a wide range of adverts which I think is really interesting, as some are not one's you would naturally think of.

• Overall I think you've done really well to add value to this page and keep a well balanced perspective, as it must be quite easy to hold personal views about something as subjective as advertising. There is a lot of information and its presented in a really accessible way. JosephineRN28 (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Josephine, I'm glad you found the article interesting thanks for your comments! That is a really interesting idea about adding in a graph of before and after the use of this form of adverts however we don't have this data available to us unfortunately. There is not much literature on cultural differences in sex in advertising, that would be something that could be really interesting to add in the future.Thanks again for all your comments they were really helpful! Isabel Nelson (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)